The Warmist fear of debate goes back a long way


Warmists have only a Humpty Dumpty shell  of science on their side so when skeptics point them to actual climate facts, the only reply possible for them is some sort of snarl.  The snarl is of course "ad hominem" and is at least abusive of not defamatory.  It can also simply be a pack of lies.  So rather than debate the climate facts, Warmists wage a rhetorical war in which they try to defame  skeptics personally -- and block anyone from hearing them.  The Warmist response to skeptics is of course not even a simulacrum of science  -- but nor is Warmism itself.  They huff and they puff and they blow their own house down.

Below is a reproduction of an early Warmist attempt to shut skeptics up  -- JR:



(Larger version here)

Excerpt:  "It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as if it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.

The overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty."  --  Ross Gelbspan quoting Al Gore in 1992

Russell Cook comments on the clipping:

That is a scan I originally linked to in my JunkScience guest article "In Case of Heart[land] Attack, Break Glass"  (7th paragraph there), and in my comment here, which is within the comments section of my own guest post at WUWT about 'the other major problem' with the Lewandowsky paper. I also showed it in the comment I placed at the PBS NewsHour to predict the AGW backlash Watts was going to get:

My heartfelt hat tip goes to Australia's Brenton Groves for supplying me with that scan and the larger "Racing to an environmental precipice: Fear of future on deteriorating planet sets agenda for Rio de Janeiro summit" May 31, 1992 Boston Globe article containing it.

I believe there was a Gore / Schneider / Gelbspan connection at the beginning of it all. Consider that in September of 1992, Schneider said the following in a Discover magazine article "Can We Repair the Air?"  (8th paragraph):  "The White House, some business groups, and a few contrary-minded scientists had always argued that the possibility of a nasty greenhouse effect was too uncertain to justify spending billions of dollars to fix it. They (as the tobacco industry has done for decades with smoking) called instead for further studies. ..."  

My thanks to you for spreading the word of how this is a 20 year boilerplate smear. It is 3 simple talking points:  "settled science" / "corrupt skeptics operating in a parallel manner to old tobacco industry shills" / "the media is not obligated to give skeptics equal balance because of the first two points". Ross Gelbspan consolidated this 3-point mantra into the successful smear it became after late 1995.

SOURCE


Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).